Christy Natsis drunk-driving trial: OPP officer biased, judge rules

The police collision investigator in the drunk-driving case against Pembroke dentist Christy Natsis had his credibility shattered Monday when a judge ruled he was biased and withheld evidence favourable to the defence.

In a ruling by Ontario Justice Neil Kozloff, OPP Const. Shawn Kelly was described as an expert witness with a lack of independence and impartiality.

The judge noted Kelly’s own emails to fellow officers, and said: “A fair reading of these emails supports the conclusion that Kelly — almost from the outset of his involvement in this matter — crossed the line from technical traffic collision investigator to general investigation of the offence. He immediately asserted himself as adviser and counsel to the officer in charge. He sought to be included in — and even to initiate — meetings with . . . all others with a ‘vested interest’ in the case.”

The judge said that while the officer was biased, he was not malicious. “He simply did not know any better,” the judge told court.

Natsis, 50, is accused of impaired driving causing death in a 2011 crash that killed Brian Casey, 50, on Hwy. 17 near Arnprior. Casey, like Natsis, was over the legal blood alcohol limit to drive.

The judge on Monday ruled that there was some merit to the defence contention that Const. Kelly “selectively omitted” three witness statements when he prepared his report for the Crown.

All three witness statements were favourable to defence. Two of the statements were from staff at an an Ottawa bar and grill, saying she didn’t appear drunk. The other statement left out of the officer’s report was from a passing motorist who stopped at the crash, reporting that Natsis told him that Casey’s truck had crossed into her lane.

“That utterance was highly relevant to the area of impact issue, which is one of the central issues — if not the pivotal issue — on causation in this case,” the judge ruled.

Still, the OPP officer left it out of his report, and the judge said he has yet to hear a “satisfactory explanation” for the glaring omission.

The officer also left out the fact that the victim in the case was over the limit as he drove home.

The judge has excluded portions of the officer’s expert testimony, as he doesn’t consider him an expert witness in all areas of the case. The judge even ruled that the collision investigator is not qualified to testify in this case as an expert when it comes to tire marks at crash scenes.

The judge’s ruling is the latest blow to the prosecution’s case.

The trial, which began two years ago, has seen lead defence lawyer Michael Edelson dissect the way the OPP officers do business.

Edelson and his partners successfully had Natsis‘s breathalyzer readings tossed out of court when a judge ruled that an OPP constable trampled her charter right to a lawyer on the night of her arrest.

The breathalyzer readings showed she had a blood-alcohol level 2 1/2 times to legal limit to drive when she collided with Casey, whose own blood-alcohol level was 1 1/2 times the legal limit. He died from massive internal injuries.

The court has also heard about several errors in OPP reports, and that all of their draft copies of the reports in question were deleted before trial.